I hope the company doesn’t realize that all it takes is a little “intransigence” to scare us away from pension improvements. If they apply that intransigence to other areas of negotiations we may never get a pay raise again.

As for PBGC/ERISA issues, I would be surprised if our stabilized plan would be covered, and if it is our insurance premiums would be very high. Our notional shares are invested in instruments that are advertised to mimic stock market returns. How do you get that with any asset mix other than stocks? PBGC/ERISA requires risk analysis to match retiree liabilities with funding requirements. If we are heavy duty stocks in the plan, there’s no way they would insure that without gobs of cash in reserve in the trust Because of the risk. Dividends on stocks would not pay nearly enough for yearly retiree income requirements, so do the equities that make up our notional investments have to be liquidated to pay us in retirement? If so this thing is a mess and a lawsuit waiting to happen. If there is more to it, it would be nice to see because the secret pancake investment mix has not been disclosed to my knowledge.

The idea of a self funding pension based on stocks is straight snake oil and we will be the laughing stock of the industry if we give away our A fund for this garbage.

We need negotiators fighting for improvements on our existing A plan and coordinating that fight with the membership, not day traders who think the stock market can save us from a fight while telling us we’re not smart enough to understand how great this magic plan is or how smart they are.